5 ms·

California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all t

California has about 30 millions cars. $1B total fuel savings are … $33 per year, for a whooping less than $3 of fuel savings per car, per month. Thing of all the places you can go with that extra half a gallon, all the work you can accomplish with that large SBUX coffee. It’s all totally worth it.

Dig1t 1mo ago
lol does $3 even buy you one small black coffee at Starbucks? I think it’s close to $5 for anything on their menu.
- kotaKat 1mo ago
  Watch out, though. That coffee may contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm!
  - 0x457 1mo ago
    Actually, Prop 65 specifically exempts coffee from the warning requirement.
    - raspasov 1mo ago
      I have seen that goofy warning in SBUX stores, for whatever it's worth haha (not on the coffee cup).
      - 0x457 1mo ago
        Kinda my problem with that label: you have no idea what's it about when you see that label. The spectrum of what got that label is so broad that it's not very useful IMO. Coffee specifically used require Prop65 warning because it releases acrylamide during roasting process, but after a lenghty legal battle coffee got an exeption.
        lazide 1mo ago
        The overly broad selection and vague wording was done intentionally by chemical manufacturer lobbyists to muddy the waters when it was obvious Prop 65 (or something equivalent) was likely to pass. There is a lot of this kind of last minute sabotage in California props.
dj_gitmo 1mo ago
If the tires wear out even 10% sooner, the entire environmental case goes out the window. I had eco tires on my Volt and they never lasted as long as they were supposed to.
testing22321 1mo ago
Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice things. You really can’t see past yourself.
- esalman 1mo ago
  Unfortunately I agree with this. For example, CA has very strict environment protection laws and many people hate it. But it's also the reason we get beautiful sky and nature all year round. When I was first landing on US soil in LA in 2015, I saw a layer of light gray smog out of the window. These days it's non-existent.
  - raspasov 1mo ago
    I live in SF, California. I think the cleaner gasoline laws are a good thing. Driving a car that emits a high volume of cancer-causing chemicals is obviously bad for everyone. For example, benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, is reduced by ~50% in CA gasoline vs Federal regulations. That's a good thing. But that doesn't make the tire efficiency rules, as stated, a good idea, as I pointed out above. Less grippy tires -> more car crashes and more human deaths.
- asa400 1mo ago
  It absolutely has good aspects, no doubt, but nothing about this is unquestionable. It’s significantly grayer due to all kinds of second order effects, even if you really believe in the problem and want to solve it. Depends on how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles that require replacement and what people replace them with. Depends on how much faster people have to replace these tires due to wear resulting in more baseline tire production. Depends on how many more one-off flat tires people get that require getting a whole new set of 4 matched tires so their diffs aren’t destroyed. Depends on whether slightly more efficient tires induce people to drive more on net because they feel like they’re using less gas. Depends on this does or doesn’t affect how much tire material ends up in the environment and landfills. There are so many levers one can pull on the “put less CO2 into the atmosphere” problem that it’s not at all clear that this one specific policy is worth it. There’s also plenty of ways to make your point without stereotyping.

Dig1t 1mo ago

lol does $3 even buy you one small black coffee at Starbucks? I think it’s close to $5 for anything on their menu.

kotaKat 1mo ago
Watch out, though. That coffee may contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm!
- 0x457 1mo ago
  Actually, Prop 65 specifically exempts coffee from the warning requirement.
  - raspasov 1mo ago
    I have seen that goofy warning in SBUX stores, for whatever it's worth haha (not on the coffee cup).
    - 0x457 1mo ago
      Kinda my problem with that label: you have no idea what's it about when you see that label. The spectrum of what got that label is so broad that it's not very useful IMO. Coffee specifically used require Prop65 warning because it releases acrylamide during roasting process, but after a lenghty legal battle coffee got an exeption.
      - lazide 1mo ago
        The overly broad selection and vague wording was done intentionally by chemical manufacturer lobbyists to muddy the waters when it was obvious Prop 65 (or something equivalent) was likely to pass. There is a lot of this kind of last minute sabotage in California props.

dj_gitmo 1mo ago

If the tires wear out even 10% sooner, the entire environmental case goes out the window. I had eco tires on my Volt and they never lasted as long as they were supposed to.

testing22321 1mo ago

Your comment perfectly encapsulates the American thought process (I’m coming from the universal healthcare discussion on the front page) You post numbers that this will save $1B in fuel. Tons of co2 equal to taking 400,000 cars off the road. Unquestionably good for society, immensely good for future generations, but you ridicule it because it doesn’t benefit YOU enough right now. This is why the US doesn’t have nice things. You really can’t see past yourself.

esalman 1mo ago
Unfortunately I agree with this. For example, CA has very strict environment protection laws and many people hate it. But it's also the reason we get beautiful sky and nature all year round. When I was first landing on US soil in LA in 2015, I saw a layer of light gray smog out of the window. These days it's non-existent.
- raspasov 1mo ago
  I live in SF, California. I think the cleaner gasoline laws are a good thing. Driving a car that emits a high volume of cancer-causing chemicals is obviously bad for everyone. For example, benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, is reduced by ~50% in CA gasoline vs Federal regulations. That's a good thing. But that doesn't make the tire efficiency rules, as stated, a good idea, as I pointed out above. Less grippy tires -> more car crashes and more human deaths.
asa400 1mo ago
It absolutely has good aspects, no doubt, but nothing about this is unquestionable. It’s significantly grayer due to all kinds of second order effects, even if you really believe in the problem and want to solve it. Depends on how many more accidents worse-gripping tires cause that result in more totaled vehicles that require replacement and what people replace them with. Depends on how much faster people have to replace these tires due to wear resulting in more baseline tire production. Depends on how many more one-off flat tires people get that require getting a whole new set of 4 matched tires so their diffs aren’t destroyed. Depends on whether slightly more efficient tires induce people to drive more on net because they feel like they’re using less gas. Depends on this does or doesn’t affect how much tire material ends up in the environment and landfills. There are so many levers one can pull on the “put less CO2 into the atmosphere” problem that it’s not at all clear that this one specific policy is worth it. There’s also plenty of ways to make your point without stereotyping.